|
|
State of
DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES |
|
JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM governor |
REBECCA A. HUMPHRIES director |
BILL NUMBER: |
House
Bill 4201 (AS INTRODUCED) |
TOPIC: |
Requires the Department of Natural Resources to
grant road access easements upon request |
SPONSOR: |
Representative
Lindberg |
CO-SPONSORS: |
Representatives
Roberts, McDowell, Sheltrown, Brown, Polidori, |
COMMITTEE: |
Tourism,
Outdoor Recreation and Natural Resources |
Analysis
Done: |
|
POSITION
The Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) opposes this legislation as introduced.
PROBLEM/BACKGROUND
The
In
Based
on statutory restrictions limiting the granting of private access easements, as
well as resource management considerations enumerated below, the Natural
Resources Commission (NRC) direction and
For
the same reasons, easements are recommended for approval only when all criteria
are satisfied. In addition, current
practice is that the applicant must agree to restrictions on the use of the
private property to be served, along with other resource protection measures;
such as limiting use of property to one single family residence, no subdivision
of the parcel, or set-backs from water courses.
DESCRIPTION OF BILL
Public land should not be transferred for exclusive private
use without it being determined that it is absolutely necessary and there is
limited impact on the natural resources.
It appears the intent of the bill is to make it easier
for private property owners to get a private-road easement over state-owned
lands from the
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
Pro
None
Con
1. Granting easements has the effect of
encumbering title to land over which they run and also affects the adjoining
public property. This reduces the market
value of state assets. Reducing value or
encumbering land that was purchased with federal funds or state restricted
funds may represent a diversion of those funds and may be illegal, or may require
approval of the federal agency.
2. Granting easements over trail corridors
diminishes the use of the trail by the public and can create safety hazards by
those using the crossing or the trail, particularly in instances where
easements cross trails where snowmobiles travel at high speed.
3. The resulting increased development on
private in-holdings will reduce the amount of public land available to the
public for hunting due to the statutory requirement for a 450 ft. safety
zone around occupied dwellings, and have a negative impact on wildlife habitat.
4. Creating private road easements across state-owned
land restricts the
5. Changing the word “may” to “shall” creates a
greater expectation that easements will be granted, diminishing the public
resources even if a viable alternative exists.
6. The proposed amendment to Section 2124 changes
“unnecessary damage” to “unreasonable damage,” resulting in less protection of state-owned
land and associated natural resources. Changing the wording from “unnecessary” to “unreasonable”
is problematic since unreasonable is a more subjective term. What the easement holder considers reasonable
may be deemed unreasonable by the owner of the land burdened by the easement. This will tend to increase disputes over
requests for easements and increase the amount of time spent by public
employees on matters related to benefiting private land, not public land.
FISCAL/ECONOMIC
IMPACT
Are there revenue or budgetary implications in the
bill to the --
(a) Department
Budgetary:
The amount of requests for private road easements
over state-owned land received and processed by the Department would likely
increase if these amendments are approved and the level of justification for
denial will be increased. This will
result in additional workload for
Revenue:
The DNR may receive additional revenue as a result of
issuing more easements; however, this additional revenue will not likely be
enough to cover the additional costs of processing more requests, nor will it
address the potential loss of revenue as a result of a parcel's market value
being lowered by the encumbrance that would occur.
Comments:
None
Budgetary:
None
Revenue:
None
Comments:
None
Comments:
None
OTHER STATE DEPARTMENTS
The
Office of Attorney General (AG) is also reviewing this bill. In 2008, the
ANY OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
Section 2123 (1) (h) in the bill does not address or
correct how the Department would be able to grant an easement when the
individual does not have a similar road easement to offer across the
individual's. In many cases, there is
not state land to be reached by crossing the individual's land, which means the
individual has no easement to offer and therefore a requirement of the Act
cannot be met.
This
could be addressed by amending Section 2123 (1) (h) to read as follows (changes
in bold caps): The individual offers a
similar road easement to the department across the land to which the easement
GRANTED BY THE DEPARTMENT is to provide access UNLESS THERE DOES NOT EXIST
ANY STATE
It
is suggested that "roadway" be changed to "road" throughout
the legislation. The reason is that
"roadway" has a broader connotation than "road" with regard
to the type of use being granted on state land.
The
legislation should stipulate that the Grantee will pay fair market value for a
granted road easement by adding to the conditions in Section 2123 the following:
i.
The applicant will pay for all costs incurred in granting
the easement, including the cost of DNR review, surveys, public notice and, for
easements over lands encumbered by federal oversight, the expense incurred in
obtaining federal approval.
The State of
ADMINISTRATIVE
RULES IMPACT
Rules can be
promulgated to provide for administration of the act.
_______________________________
Rebecca A. Humphries
Director
_______________________________
Date
OLAF/WLD/FMFM/PRD